Posted on 01/19/2006 3:35:07 AM PST by Mr170IQ
Fair enough. I'm a mathematician, not a biologist, and wasn't aware of the degree to which mutations like this had been examined. In fact, reading on this thread has been illuminating in this regard. When I first read about IC concepts I read about them in regard to Behe, so I suppose I associate them with him, even though I see now this was incorrect.
As a mathematician and computer scientist, my mind jumped straight to genetic algorithms, and the problems of combinatorial explosion that have to be dealt with there. I thought that if nature were to give us clues about which types of mutations were useful in certain domains, we could then try to constrain our algorithms in a principled, useful way. Computational biologists are probably, actually, all over this, but I'd never though about it before, so Behe became associated in my mind with this idea when he probably doesn't deserve to be.
So I guess that's the real flaw in this article, that it seems to give a lot of credit for recognizing that complex mutations must exist to the recent IC arguments when in fact the IC arguments have been around forever and a day. I had made the same error, so I guess I have some sympathy for the man. But not too much. After all, I would have checked before I published anything.
I had trouble suspending my disbelief in Diamond Age. The economics of "The Feed" just didn't make sense. Here you have a technology that enables you to create arbitrary amounts of whatever, very cheaply...but somehow you still have economic rich and poor. What's the point of providing a halfway-capable Feed to "poor" people, other than to provide conflict for a story? (The sex-based information processing seemed highly inefficient, too.)
A better social analysis is to be found in Beggars in Spain by Nancy Kress. What do you get when you eliminate economic scarcity, and require nothing in return? You get a society full of really awful people. When you eliminate all poverty, do you get equality? No, you get people who have ability, and those who have it not.
bump
A good many high school biology textbooks refer to it.
No, it's agnostic, not atheistic.
We've been down this road before. To state that God is, or always be, beyond the purview of science is to make an atheistic statement about science. NO God = atheistic by definition. Public school textbooks on biology hardly present the subject from an "agnostic" perspective. They don't say, "it is possible that a higher intelligence is behind all this organized matter and life but we just don't know for sure."
Not really.
Assuming a heliocentric solar system, if the Earth's rotation were stopped, both the sun and the moon would continue to have slight, but real apparent motion in the Earth's sky. The sun would move as a result of the Earth revolving around it, and the moon would move as a result of it's revolution around the Earth. (Both of these motions depend on mass only, and not rotation.) Further, the Sun has apparent motion associated with the Earth's axial tilt, and the fact that the Earth's orbit isn't a circle, but an ellipse.
For the Sun to appear to stop in the sky, the Earth's rotation would have to slow to one rotation per year, the Earth has to be untilted, and the orbit has to be altered to be a circle.
But the moon is the real problem, here. For the moon to appear to stop, it's period of rotation and revolution must be equal, and it must be in geostationary orbit about the Earth. For the earth rotating at it's current speed, that is about ten times closer to the Earth than it is now. The moon orbiting at such a distance would dominate the sky.
However, in this problem, remember, the Earth's rotation has to be slowed down to one revolution per year. But at such a rotational speed, geostationary orbit is significantly farther away from the Earth than the moon's current distance. (As an alternative, you could move the moon to one of the stable LaGrange points in the Earth-Sun system.) So you would not only have to move the moon a significant distance, but you would also have to slow it's rotation significantly, as well.
And, at such a distance, the moon would appear to be tiny. Of course, this movement of the moon would be a movement, so the moon would not be standing still, as the passage in Joshua suggests. And there is nothing in Joshua which notes the Moon's sudden change in size. That would be as remarkable as the Sun and moon not moving, and would surely be noted.
However, assuming a geocentric solar system, on the other hand, in order for the sun and moon to appear to stop, they merely have to stop (and the moon would have to stop rotating.) (This, of course, discounts the effects of gravity as we know them, but that is consistent with this model, anyway...)
The point is that, with a heliocentric model, it is impossible to get the Sun and the Moon to appear to be motionless simply by halting the motion of the Earth. And it is impossible to get the moon to remain the same apparent size in the sky and be still just by stopping the motion of these bodies. It would require massive and multiple re-calibrations of the Earth's rotation, axial tilt, and orbit just to get the sun to appear to stop, and the moon is an even bigger problem.
The passage in Joshua is clearly more consistent with a geocentric understanding of the solar system.
Actually, I have never categorically ID'd (no pun intended) my self as a YEC'er, materialistic evolutionist or other member of either camp on these threads.
I accept all possiilities as being, well, (for lack of a better word) possible. Is the world only 6,000 years and human perception indicating otherwise a "trick of the devil"? Maybe - since we have'nt measured the capabilities of supernatural beings (much less irrefutably determined their actual existence) a being might be capable of that.
Is Genesis an allegory for a magnificent clockwork made and "wound up" by an almighty creator? Sure, that's possible.
Is atheistic materialism correct, i.e., there nothing beyond or in addition to that which can be observed and measured, making the Bible and any other scripture a flat out lie. I have to consider that as a possibility, too.
I can give you reasons why I am a Christian and rationally defend my faith, but ultimately, I cannot build a scientific case for my faith. But my faith and my experiences with God are the most amazing and (subjectively) real aspects of my life.
PH, the crevo discussions don't interest me as much as that excellent recently posted thread of Dr. Randall's theories of superstrings, branes, and gravitic force. Some of the recent advances in theoretical physics are quite remarkable when you consider what kind of language an all knowing God would have to use to describe "His Kingdom" to people that did'nt have Newton, Einstein, Randall, and Hawking in their libraries.
Stephenson is great. I am about halfway through "System of the World" now. I will get Snow Crash on your recomendation.
That stands to reason since the biblical texts were written by, and for, a wholly geocentric audience.
As long as science textbooks make no reference to God and consider God to be outside its purview, they will be by definition atheistic, not agnostic. Agnostic acknowledges the two possibilities yet remains undecided about either. Science textbooks do not acknowledge both possibilities and state an undecided position.
True. But the solar system is heliocentric.
One of the simple apologetics books I read a long time defined the term miracle as "An occurence which is contrary to physical laws", i.e., a dropped baseball stopping in midair with no obvious impediment (such as a hand, glove, or suspension device.
While what was being described in Joshua is a "simpler trick" assuming a geocentric system, the occurence itself, in no matter what type of system is beyond that possible within physical laws (at least as currently understood).
I was trying to keep the "miraculous" aspect out of my original reply, since this is not on the religion forum, but thanks for your pointing out how much harder God had to work to answer Joshua's prayer! ;-)
It also doesn't say He created DNA. It doesn't say how he changed the atomic structure of "dust" into H2O, the primary component of living creatures. Genesis leaves out lots and lots of details, including the one how God created man at the end of a long chain of evolution.
And spare me that the Bible isn't a science book, blah blah blah. I realize that.
No, you don't, or we wouldn't be having this discussion.
I have to wonder if maybe God didn't anticipate these arguments so he made it clear what he did.
No, Genesis is not clear at all. The description of something as huge and complex as the universe and all the life in it would take libraries bigger than earth has ever seen to completely document. And that's ignoring how all that was *created*, I'm just talking about complete documentation of all that exists.
You claiming that God "made it clear what he did" in a few pages of Genesis makes me wonder if you understand the difference between reality and fantasy.
And I wouldn't vote for a communist, socialist, atheist, and probably some more "ists" that escape me now.
That's why they don't tell you what they are, so they don't lose the votes of people like you. My original point was that when someone outs themselves as a creationist, they lose the votes of entire segments of the population, just as if they had outed themselves as a communist. The only difference is which segment of the population will now refuse to vote for them.
*Now* do you understand why it is important for conservative politicians, even creationist conservative politicians, to avoid the subject of ID and creationism, and focus on other important issues that have broader appeal?
You can disagree if you want, but if you do, the discussion should be about why it is *not* damaging to the conservative agenda for politicians to endorse creationism and ID.
That is not accurate. Agnosticism does not acknowledge only two possibilities. Agnosticism recognizes that there are many possibilities, including, for example, the Hindu pantheon, Roman and Greek gods, etc., in addition to the Abrahamic God.
The agnostic recognizes that there is no conclusive proof of any of them. Therefore, the agnostic cannot make a definitive statement that there is a god, many gods or no gods. The degree to which that agnostic favors one result or another is a matter of personal taste.
I think it is more accurate to say that science is non-theistic. It does not deny or accept the existence of a god or many gods. It simply does not deal with them. If it were atheistic, it would assert that there is no god or gods and that it does not do.
So what is the source of evolution?
Do you claim that your God is so weak that it would be impossible for Him to have created something as elegant as evolution?
Does evaporation and condensation cause rain? Or does God create it? What's the difference?
Evolution is merely a process, just like rain. You can believe God created it if you want. But evolution is how we got here, and that's just the truth.
I'm not talking about relativistic physics or germ theory. I'm talking about science in general, and a particular statement many of its adherents agree to, namely that, "God is beyond the purview of science." This is an inherently atheistic point of view. It is not agnostic, as you say. Is it more scientific to be atheistic? Maybe. But it is not the federal government's prerogative to establish and espouse only such a point of view.
200
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.